IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT MUMBAI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.__OF 2019

UNDER SECTION 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Mr. Ram Kumar, Age : 27 Years

S/o Mr. Shyam Kumar
R/o 25, Epitome Complex,
Mumbai – 400079, Occupation : Service

Mr. Anirudh Kumar, Age : 29 Years

S/o Mr. Shyam Kumar
R/o 25, Epitome Complex,
Mumbai – 400079, Occupation : Service

Mr. Jayant Kumar, Age : 26 Years

S/o Mr. Shyam Kumar
R/o 25, Epitome Complex,
Mumbai – 400079, Occupation : Service

and
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Age : 24 Years
S/o Mr. Shyam Kumar
R/o 25, Epitome Complex,
Mumbai – 400079, Occupation : Service ………. Appellants

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra ………..Respondent

APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED

SESSION’S JUDGE ___of 2019 IN
Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2019 State of Maharashtra v. Ram Kumar and Ors.

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his companion Judges of High Court. The Appellants most
respectfully submit against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the
accused under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code 1860, the statement of appeal and grounds
thereof as follows:

1. That the appeal aforesaid arises out of the impugned judgement and order passed by the
sessions court aforesaid whereby in the order dated 28.10.2019 by the LD Sessions Court,
 convicting the Appellants u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code and punishing them to
rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and the facts leading up to this appeal are as follows:

2. That Appellants in this appeal are the accused No.1 being Ram, Accused No.2 Anirudh,
Accused No. 3 Jayant , and Accused No. 4 Rahul and who are alleged to be present at the
premises of P. P. Jewellery Store on the night of 31 st December 2018 when there
occurred a scene of robbery in the store.

3. The Appellants are Indian Citizens permanently residing in the State of Maharashtra,
having their occupation as salesmen in P. P. Jewellery store.

4. The case of the accused persons are that they were not involved in the robbery at the P.P.
Jewellery store and this entire sequence of events was planned and executed by some
rivals of the accused persons as they were told by one person, Mr. Ravi Sharma to come
opposite to the store urgently and upon doing so they saw that the store glass was broken
and gold ornaments were missing hence they began to run away from the scene.

5. It was stated by the Complainant, the owner of the shop, Mr. Nitin Godbole that like
every day, he closed the shop at 10.00 p.m. and went to his home which was on top of the
jewelery store. At Around 11:30 p.m. he heard the noise of commotion coming from the
store and the breaking off glass and shatter of window. On hearing that, he called the
police, who upon arriving found the Appellants running away from the scene from the
crime.

6. It was noticed in the footage of security cameras that there was an unknown figure
wearing masks who broke the window panes and stole jewellery and not the Appellants
and in fact Appellants had arrived only minutes prior to the police arriving and upon
seeing the shatterred glasses and hearing the police siren, they got scared and tried to run
away from the scene of the crime and thereby they were arrested by the police.

7. The Appellants had also submitted evidence in electronic form of screenshots from Mr.
Ravi Sharma asking the Appellants to arrive at the scene of crime urgently as there had
been an emergency at the shop.

8. The Sessions judge without appreciating the security footage and the electronic evidence,
held the accused persons guilty under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and
sentenced them to imprisonment. Hence, this appeal is filed before the Hon’ble high
court. There is no appeal on the same matter previously filed which is pending before any
court.

Grounds of Appeal
 (1) The judgement or order of the learned Sessions Judge is patently wrong and the
electronic evidence and the security footage proves otherwise and instead proves the
Appellants claim of conspiracy and sabotage against them.
(2) The sessions judge ought to have appreciated the evidence in its true and proper
perspective in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad V Sharda v. State
of Maharashtra [1984 (4) SCC 116], where apex court has held that circumstantial
evidence must present a complete picture with no other alternatives possible, which is
lacking in the matter at hand.
(3) The conviction and sentence are not maintainable in law and facts on record as there is no
substantial evidence, either oral or documentary which proves the commital of offence
beyond reasonable doubt by the Appellants and the sessions court has misinterpreted the
evidence put forward before it.

PRAYER
Therefore, the Appellants abovenamed, most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble court be
pleased to :
a) Acquit the Appellants of offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860;
b) Reverse the judgment and order of the Ld. Sessions Judge dated 28.10.2019 in
Sessions trial no. 200 of 2019.
c) Allow the present appeal
d) Suspend the sentence against the Appellants pending this appeal and order the
Appellants to be released on bail
e) Pass any order that it may deem fit and reasonable in the interests of justice and
equity.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANTS, AS IN EVER DUTY BOUND,
SHALL HUMBLY PRAY.

Sd/-
Place Mumbai Appellants
Dated 10th October, 2019 Sd/-
Counsel for Appellant

VERIFICATION
(Of all the Appellants)
We, Ram Kumar, Anirudh Kumar, Jayant Kumar and Rahul Kumar, the present
appeallants, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of this petition in
paragraphs 1 and 8 are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and beliefs, and
so we have signed hereunder.
Sd/-
Appellants